Filed Date: Jan. 28, 2017
Closed Date: June 27, 2017
Clearinghouse coding complete
This action, filed on January 28, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (in Los Angeles), challenged President Trump’s January 27, 2017, Executive Order (EO-1) banning non-U.S. citizen nationals of Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen from entering the United States. The plaintiff, an Iranian citizen with a U.S. immigrant visa and a U.S. citizen son, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking immediate release from detention and a civil complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The complaint argued that detaining a lawful U.S. visa holder solely pursuant to EO-1 violated Fifth Amendment equal protection and due process rights, the First Amendment Establishment Clause, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The plaintiff was represented by the ACLU of Southern California and private counsel.
The plaintiff was an Iranian citizen who had a U.S. immigrant visa and a U.S. citizen son. When the plaintiff landed at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) on January 27, 2017, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) detained him and threatened to deport him to Iran as soon as the next day. Had he been granted admission to the U.S., the plaintiff would have qualified to receive a green card seven weeks later. The plaintiff additionally claimed that he was denied access to counsel during his detention at LAX. The habeas petition and complaint named CBP; its parent department, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); the Commissioner of CBP; the Secretary of DHS; the Director of the Los Angeles Field Office of CBP; and President Trump, in his official capacity, as defendants.
In the habeas petition and complaint the plaintiff requested the following relief from the district court: a writ of habeas corpus requiring the government to release the plaintiff, a declaration that the detention of the plaintiff was unauthorized by statute and contrary to law, an order requiring the plaintiff’s admission to the U.S. per the terms of the INA, and attorneys’ fees.
Contemporaneous with the filing of the habeas petition and complaint, the plaintiff submitted to the district court an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to stay his deportation. However, before the court could review the application, the plaintiff was placed on a flight to Dubai by federal agents. The plaintiff filed an amended ex parte application on January 29, 2017, and the court granted a TRO that same day. The TRO enjoined and restrained the federal government from preventing the plaintiff from returning to the U.S., and required the government to transport the plaintiff back to the U.S. and admit him under the terms of his travel visa. The court explained that interim injunctive relief was appropriate because (1) the plaintiff had a strong likelihood of success in establishing that his removal from the U.S. violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the INA, and the Equal Protection Clause and (2) the plaintiff would likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of such relief. 2017 WL 396531.
The case—initially assigned to Judge Dolly Gee on an emergency basis—was reassigned to Judge S. James Otero on January 30. Judge Otero referred the case to Magistrate Judge Steve Kim.
On February 1, 2017, District Judge Otero set a status conference for February 10, 2017, to discuss the status of the government’s compliance with the TRO. According to the LA Times, the plaintiff returned to LAX on the afternoon of February 2, 2017. The LA Times report also claimed that the plaintiff was the first person who was negatively impacted by EO-1 to be allowed to enter the U.S. as a result of a lawsuit. Based on this development, the government apparently followed the requirements of the TRO, and a docket entry for the February 10 status conference shows that the order was dissolved by District Judge Otero.
But the plaintiff did not withdraw his civil complaint. The next status conference took place on March 24, 2017. The government filed a motion to dismiss on April 24 and, shortly thereafter, the court set a status conference for July 7. Before this status conference could take place, however, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on June 26. In the stipulation, counsel for the plaintiff indicated that they had come to an agreement with the government such that the case could be dismissed with prejudice. An ACLU press release from the same date reported that the plaintiff had been granted a green card and lawful permanent resident status. According to the ACLU, the settlement ensured that the government’s initial attempt to cancel the plaintiff’s visa on January 27 would have no effect on his immigration process. The district court entered an order granting the stipulated dismissal with prejudice the next day, on June 27, 2017.
This case is closed.
Summary Authors
Virginia Weeks (1/30/2017)
Julie Aust (2/18/2017)
Virginia Weeks (6/29/2017)
Jamie Kessler (4/25/2017)
Esteban Woo Kee (11/27/2021)
Evan Gamza (5/21/2022)
For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4576959/parties/ali-khoshbakhti-vayeghan-v-john-f-kelly/
Gee, Dolly Maizie (California)
Otero, S. James (California)
Standish, Gail J. (California)
Arulanantham, Ahilan T (California)
Bibring, Peter (California)
Brewer, Megan (California)
Iguina, Carmen G. (California)
Pasquarella, Jennifer (California)
Tolchin, Stacy Eva (California)
Ward, Brian Christopher (District of Columbia)
Gee, Dolly Maizie (California)
Otero, S. James (California)
Standish, Gail J. (California)
Arulanantham, Ahilan T (California)
Bibring, Peter (California)
Brewer, Megan (California)
Iguina, Carmen G. (California)
Pasquarella, Jennifer (California)
Tolchin, Stacy Eva (California)
Ward, Brian Christopher (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4576959/ali-khoshbakhti-vayeghan-v-john-f-kelly/
Last updated Feb. 4, 2023, 3:16 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Jan. 28, 2017
Closing Date: June 27, 2017
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Iranian citizen with a U.S. immigrant visa who was denied entry to the U.S. on January 27, 2017, the day that President Trump's travel ban executive order first went into effect.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Washington D.C.), Federal
Office of the President of the U.S. (Washington D.C.), Federal
Department of Homeland Security (Washington D.C.), Federal
Office of the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Washington D.C.), Federal
Office of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (Washington D.C.), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Religious Freedom Rest. Act/Religious Land Use and Inst. Persons Act (RFRA/RLUIPA)
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General:
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Discrimination-basis:
National origin discrimination
Immigration/Border:
National Origin/Ethnicity: